---

87, 19 ft CPD Outrage project.
I respect a single, I NEED twins for work boat maneauvering & towing.
Narrowed the list down to the following:

A. 60 E-TEC's.
240 lbs ea. Two-cylinder two-stroke. 2.67:1

B. F60 EFI Yamaha's.
237 lbs ea. Four-cylinder four-stroke. 1.85:1

C. 60 Big Foot
264 lbs ea. Four-cylinder four-stroke 2.33:1. Heavy duty shafting, salt water approved, high gear ratio and US product is appealing.

---

michael k,

I am not positive, but I believe the CPD hulls are rated for more hp than the recreational models.

The standard Outrage 18' is rated for 150 hp so many people put twin 70 hp on this model.
Take a look at one of our members Outrage 18' with twin 90 hp E-Tecs.
Dave Buckda's Personal Page

If the CPD model is rated for more hp, then I would certainly look at putting twin 90 hp E-Tec's on it. You also have a choice of twin 75 hp E-Tec's because they weigh the same as the 90 hp version.

I do not believe your boat will plane on just one 60 hp engine and that is something you might want to consider. I owned an Outrage 18' with twin Evinrude 70 hp on it and it would plane on one engine. See this article:
http://www.whalercentral.com/readarti...icle_id=35

You don't say what part of the country you are from, but if you don't live in California or another state that won't let you use the older two strokes, then I would consider twin 70 hp Yamaha 2 stroke...

---

Michael,

If your boat is a commercial hull it would be a Guardian, Raider, etc not an Outrage. The Guardians were the most prevalent.

1987 CGP/CPD boats came in 17, 18, 20, 22, 25, and 27 foot lengths. I'm guessing your boat is the 18 footer, which would have an actual length of 18'6".

The commercial boats had the same hp ratings as their recreational cousins. The 18' hull for both carried a rating of 150 hp. Given that the hull lay-up was much more substantial on the commercial hulls (500 lbs more than the 18' recreational model), if you want performance on the higher end of the scale I'd agree with Joe's recommendation of twin 75 or 90's. You may find yourself dissatisfied with the performance otherwise.

Here is a spec sheet for the late 80's Guardians: Click on the image or the link below it.
[img]http://whalercentral.com/images/specs.jpg[/img]

Guardian Specs.

Good luck with your project and post some pics when you get a chance.

Mike

---

Michael and I have been chatting via e-mail. I believe that the concern with twin 75 or 90 HP E-TEC motors is that he'd like to leave the boat with the plugs out. I'll be double checking for him in a few weeks when I can launch my boat again (a few more projects to finish), but I believe his concern is static trim at rest with plugs out so he doesn't need bilge pumps.

Michael - my biggest concern with the smaller motors is doing duty towing, etc. As I said before, I think that with a cover to keep most water out and just pulling the splashwell plugs, you should be okay if you don't mount the motors on brackets.

Then of course....there's the cost.

As soon as I launch the boat I'll measure the static trim and take some photos for you.

Dave

---

Here is photo of the 1987 20' Guardian with twin 70's -
[img]http://www.whalercentral.com/images/ppimages/1/Boston%20Whaler%20Guardian%20Divemaster%2020%2003.jpg[/img]
The static trim doesn't seem to be overly weighted to the aft. I'm not sure of the weight difference between the 1986 70's and the newer motors you are considering. Being almost 2 feet shorter would make a difference too, but again, I'm not sure how much.

The pictured boat has the oil tanks in the splashwell area and two batteries just forward of the splashwell.

I agree with Dave about his concern over using lower hp for the purposes you have in mind.

Maybe floating the boat with weight added in the splashwell to approximate the weight of the twin motors would give you an idea of the static trim.

Mike

---

After looking at the picture it brings to mind a question for you.

What is the configuration of your console and seat?

Mine is well forward of the traditional placement of the console. I am in the process of moving the set-up further aft and may well end up with some change to static trim. I plan to offset this to some extent by moving the batteries forward, placing them inside the seat.

---

Tho I would really like to run with Super Dave Buckda 90's, sigh, he is right, I am concerned overweight engines "might" founder in the NW.

This boat is a 19 ft Guardian (87, built in Mass) will be kept in fresh water almost year round, ready to serve.

I also have a 94, 17 ft Outrage with transom mounted 115 Fitch w/6 hp kicker that meets BW OEM transom weight specs. I nearly blew it with this boat by not removing the bilge plug and it filled up to and over the spill dam with rain water. Possibly routine swells came over the transom at one point, anyway, she was full as she could get and didnt sink.
Luckily the engines did not submerge and no oil spilled.

This incident "scared me" enough...
right now, Im thinkin the extra 200 lbs of Etec 90s might get wet, not to mention the investment risk there.
Thankyou for all the comments and suggestions. I know there is enough floatation/transom strength to support 200 lbs over but the question is, will that weight be enough to founder the engines with the plug pulled?

Im waitin for DAVE to pull the bottom plug on his Guardian and let me know what happens...hehe. Im bettin his 90's will be lifted and he will not be very patient to let er finish filling. Just kidding Dave, dont take any chances for my sake, but, do you agree you would be nervous about it?

The 17 has a nice waterproof cover but taking it on/off is contrary to the purpose of the 19. Call me lazy, the OEM positioned console and air ride seats will be covered, Im ol school, the only way to cover a boat in the water is build a cabin.
That's right DAVE, air ride seats will swivel, beat that!

IF I wanted to rig bilge pump switches I would have bought a Alumaweld or Duckworth. I want to nick a piece of drift, make a lousy landing against a barge or a dock with this Guardian, go home and sleep.


reminds me (true joke),
My Brother in Law used to be the Shop Supervisor for DUCKWORTH & still is quite the Alum hull fan...has his own boat repair buisness now. anyway,
He says, OK, try to take a chain saw to THIS hull.
I replied, ahhh, waste of gas & good chain, give two swings with an ax.
I should call him.

On 70 hp 2 strokes. Gas just went over $3.00 gal here. Far as I can tell, there is no NEW, 2 stroke, 70-75 hp engine that is not CARBED. Have no doubt I would like MORE hp. Crouch calc's around 33-35 with twins. It wont plane on one but hey, Im used to running hour upon hour at 12.5 on my Tug with the tide, if I make 18 on one, I will be flying. Plus, this is not a boat for a big bay or Ocean, any port in a storm is never far.

I would really like to learn the performance charactoristics of these very different 60 hp engines.
Certainly the Etec's should achieve quicker throttle, top speed but what happens if you put em under a load (tow) without changing wheels?
Will the Big Foot 4 cyl, 4 stroke, HD shafting, high gear ratio not really care if you are carrying 1 passenger or 4 and limits of salmon/crab?

gotta run.

sorry for the late nite caffien ramble.

mkj

---

I had an 18 with twin Yamaha 70s. If I remember right they were 218# ea. Lighter than most 150s with a kicker. Never ran with the plugs in. Always thought the ideal setup for an 18 would be with twin 90s.

---

I'm not nervous about it at all. The powerheads are both above the transom notch, so they will remain above water even if the boat fills "completely", which I already know it will not, since I've had it in the water with all the plugs pulled.

Most of my boating has the sump plug in and the splashwell drain center plug out (I leave the two side plugs in). I've never been overly concerned except when loaded for cruising with a couple coolers in the stern. Then I plug all plugs and throw the breaker for the automatic bilge pumps in case of "backwash" over the transom when decelerating or in following seas.

Would I leave my boat at a slip with no cover and all the plugs out? Probably not. With a cover? Probably. The cover is the difference for me since it will keep 80 percent of the water out of the boat and just allow water in the splashwell. The only concern with that in my mind is marine growth inside the splashwell and bilge.

Since mine is a trailer queen, I don't worry about it. When I'm staying transient at a marina, I don't worry about it.

Dave

---

Way too much has been said about the shortcomings of twins by people that dont have a clue.
If the extra weight was a real problem dont you think the Navy boats would have run singles. How about the Coast Guard rescue boats?
How much higher does a boat with a single and a kicker sit? You think 2 inches is gonna make a difference?

---

One of the things that Michael is dealing with is the agony I went through last winter when figuring out which motors to put on my 18. The 18' Outrage, while it can accommodate twin motors, is probably the most difficult classic Whaler to repower due to the weight of current motor offerings.

Stay within recommended weights and you're stuck with either old technology (if even an option for you), or too little power.

I will just say that these boats were conservatively rated on a lot of factors. My personal opinion is that twin E-TEC 90 motors are a pretty darn good match for this hull, although the hull does squat a little with the added weight.

The other thing I will just point out is that sometimes the exact same boat has slightly different trim for whatever reason. I can remember: my bow was lower than Mike Gephart's 18' when I boated with him a few summers ago in the North Channel. It was quite obvious, and a difference of about 3 inches if I recall correctly.

With twins, my hull is noticeably different than Paul Mott's 18 as compared last fall when we rafted up together.

Mike's advice above is best. Buy the appropriate amount of sand/anchors, whatever and load your splashwell with the weight to approximate several different engine combination scenarios. Make your decision based upon your tolerance for the trim angles observed in that testing.

Good luck.

Dave

---

If you are really concerned with water in the splashwell, don't put the engines on brackets. I took a Merc 150 and moved it 8 inches aft and added 100 pounds and all three splashwell thru hulls were under water. I believe that had I only added the 100 pounds (stern seat) not much change to the static trim would have resulted.

I agree with the suggestions to add the additional weight to the splashwell and see what happens. Every boat is different and until you know exactly how yours will react, it's all guess work.

I am about to take mine up an additional 12 pounds over the merc 150 and I don't expect the trim to change very much if at all.

---

I get wild ideas, many work, some dont. thanks for reeling me in.

GREAT POINT DAVE, the hull is well painted, I didnt think about the water sloshing around inside the bilge with the plug out all the time. It is fresh water but shallow and the Tug stirs up mud near it at low tide. Yes, the bilge would become a slimmey mess. End of that story. Thanks.

Plan B.
Good batteries, solar charger & a bilge pump switch. piece of cake.
Plan C
Scuppers thru the spill dam? The boat has a nice OEM tow bit.
Plan D
Fire up Matts 150 Black Max (361 hrs) and see what happens.
Plan E
All of the above.

The 17 is goin up for sale next week. $12.75k
90 etecs are not out of the picture yet.

---

On moving the console (weight) fwd...yes. thx.

A lot depends IF the area the air ride seats take up will block the side path fwd past the console or not. It is close on paper. If I can get my fat ass past ok, the console & seats will move fwd a little when the fuel tank is installed.
If I cant get by quickly, the layout might become a Norski Ventura Guardian with Bently air ride seats (with arm rests) and a radar tower.

Idea is, with the seats mounted port & stbd, the center area will become twice as wide as the side passage with the same seats mounted in the middle. Hey, this is the NW, bimini tops are something sweet young things wear to dinner.

---

Michael –

I would NOT recommend scuppers through the splashwell dam. That is defeating the purpose of this designed area.

I’d leave the scupper/drains open on the transom and perhaps paint the splashwell area interior with ablative paint to reduce marine growth, as with twins, this area will contain water at rest.

I’d have a bilge pump in the sump, and like you said, run a solar charger on the battery and call it good. If you have power at the dock, I’d skip the solar and run a trickle/float charger permanently mounted inside the console and just plug it in before leaving the boat (a battery tender type). You can very easily rig a shore power outlet on the side of the console and just plug in the cable at the dock before walking away. This will also keep your batteries in top condition for the commercial use you intend to use the boat for.

Finally, I’d run two batteries and run them isolated so if your bilge drains one, you can still get motors running to go out on a call.

Given the climate in the great PNW, I’d think that the solar charger may not be the best option. I know it doesn’t rain as MUCH as the Midwest, but it sure does rain/mist more often, and your sunlight is often filtered through cloud cover.

Worst case scenario is that your pump fails or you lose power with torrential rain. Water fills the cockpit to a depth of the spashwell dam, when it will pour over the dam and equalize through the transom scupper/drains. This water level will approach the console, but not high enough to flood batteries in the console. If this should happen, you will need to drain the boat and open all deck plates (which should be done during winter lay-up anyway to facilitate circulation under there).

And I agree with Kamie. While I’m not proficient enough at math to figure out exactly how much more “apparent weight” is on the transom with setback brackets, it certainly must have some kind of leverage effect whereby mounting twins directly to the transom may reduce some of the negative trim characteristics you are trying to avoid with the heavier 75 and 90 HP motors. This may also aid in the installation of a tow bar/crash bar on the back of the boat if that’s your plan. (and more weight)…the setback engines may require a larger bar, etc. avoiding the setback may help you on that front, although I’m not sure what your plans are for the towing aspect….and I suspect you have considerably more knowledge on that than I do, so I will leave that aspect to you.

If the boat doesn’t really ever need to plane with one motor (i.e. you’re using it on a fairly calm river system where the torque/power of one motor may not achieve plane but will overcome the current enough to get you home comfortably, then I’d reconsider using the two smaller motors (60 HP and below)…but if you need to oomph to get home now, no matter what – then I’d look at the twin 75 or 90 HP E-TEC or OptiMax motors.

Dave

---

Dave.
Ok, I take it, if I put scuppers in at deck level, with Etec 90s weight, water would enter thru the scuppers at rest?
Yeah, not good. I was hoping the scuppers would drain the rainwater thru hull.

Ive gotta shelve this for awhile.
Just got another job today (in addition to the meat & potato work).
Roofers, window and siding guys are coming with the next good weather window...could be July the way things are going. Man, it has been RAINING and RAINING, the river is running...soooo...
I took the 18 to the shop today with the 150 Merc Black Max (361 hrs) flush mounted and told Darin to call me when it is ready.
This boat is gonna have twins, I just dont know when.

hehe, sounds like the first verse of a country tune...

mk